Its not my job to write the ending to a product. The ending is so bad and leaves so many plot points unresolved that people ARE ALREADY WRITING THEIR OWN ENDINGS. Indoctrination Theory? I didn't pay to have to do someone else's job for them. I want to force Bioware to finish the game.

I love how the natural response to anyone who expresses indifference or disagreement with the idea of changing the ending to ME3 "just doesn't get it".

Well, yes. We don't get it. And some of us (such as myself) don't want to "get it", either, because apparently "getting it" means to just blindly accept that you're right. No one seems all that willing to accept a point of view that doesn't instantly translate to "SCREW EA THIS GAME'S ENDING SUCKS AND MUST BE CHANGED NAO".

No matter how good or bad the story was ended, changing the ending of a game post-humorously due to fan reaction sets a terrible precedent that I never want to see done, much less repeated (as it will be, if a title as big as Mass Effect does it then other games will feel obligated to). I won't deny it's a terrible ending (unless you buy the indoctrination theory in which case it's actually closer to brilliance disguised as a bad ending), and I won't try to claim that there aren't some valid complaints here. But think about it: do you really want people to be forced to change the endings to games because they don't meet with your explicit specifications? What happens when people disagree (as they do here)? Do the people who liked ME3's ending just get drowned out by the vocal ones and that's it? There needs to be a line in the sand, and I think forcing companies to change their games for reasons other than bug fixing is crossing that line.

If you're really so mad at EA for messing this story up, then do what you should have done years ago: stop buying their products. Boycott them. Hit them where it hurts, and you'll teach them to change their ways. Yet I've seen dozens of posts on this forum saying that people would happily pay for DLC that fixes the ending, proving to me that perhaps YOU (yes, you) are the ones who truly do not "get it". If you're willing to pay them to "fix" the ending, you're only encouraging them to do it again.

CriticKitten:I love how the natural response to anyone who expresses indifference or disagreement with the idea of changing the ending to ME3 "just doesn't get it".

Well, yes. We don't get it. And some of us (such as myself) don't want to "get it", either, because apparently "getting it" means to just blindly accept that you're right. No one seems all that willing to accept a point of view that doesn't instantly translate to "SCREW EA THIS GAME'S ENDING SUCKS AND MUST BE CHANGED NAO".

No matter how good or bad the story was ended, changing the ending of a game post-humorously due to fan reaction sets a terrible precedent that I never want to see done, much less repeated (as it will be, if a title as big as Mass Effect does it then other games will feel obligated to). I won't deny it's a terrible ending (unless you buy the indoctrination theory in which case it's actually closer to brilliance disguised as a bad ending), and I won't try to claim that there aren't some valid complaints here. But think about it: do you really want people to be forced to change the endings to games because they don't meet with your explicit specifications? What happens when people disagree (as they do here)? Do the people who liked ME3's ending just get drowned out by the vocal ones and that's it? There needs to be a line in the sand, and I think forcing companies to change their games for reasons other than bug fixing is crossing that line.

If you're really so mad at EA for messing this story up, then do what you should have done years ago: stop buying their products. Boycott them. Hit them where it hurts, and you'll teach them to change their ways. Yet I've seen dozens of posts on this forum saying that people would happily pay for DLC that fixes the ending, proving to me that perhaps YOU (yes, you) are the ones who truly do not "get it". If you're willing to pay them to "fix" the ending, you're only encouraging them to do it again.

For the people up in arms, it's unthinkable that anybody cannot see how bad these ending are. They introduced a theme that superseded the original one of just stop the reapers and concluded it in 14 lines of dialog so I'm inclined to believe what they're saying. It gives no closure and does not wrap up many many lose ends. Largely the problem stems from the hologram kid apparently and there's a mod out there that just shows Shepherd and Anderson bleeding out then it cutting to reapers destroyed ending which easily was better than bio ware's own attempt to explain.

However here I was thinking that this entire time EA had just cut the ending that made any sense so people WOULD buy it as DLC and have been milking the bad ending as publicity ever since. It's the kind of thing they would do. My response like many others id assume, is to not pay for the game but I may just end up playing it plus DLC. Ill let you guess how.

If someone does something poorly I think it is perfectly fine for an audience to call them out on their bullshit. If the chance is presented to correct said bullshit, than an artist should listen to the intelligent people and consider the option.

If they decide not to, whatever, that's their choice. But if they decide to change it that's hardly a bad thing. More a good thing really.

I was agreeing with you up until this point. I understand making modifications to said game is a good idea for patches, but changing the ending is way to distract. Whatever they decided for the ending is what it will be, perhaps they could add more foreshadowing and a bit of more conclusions to the story arcs but what ever the ultimate ending is, thats what it stays.

dragonswarrior:Again, as I have stated in previous posts, calling an artists work "sacred" and "totally their own" is extremely silly. I can't even begin to go into all the problems involved with that... Aiiieee tcha. Someone's work is never truly their own, and you know what? THAT IS AWESOME. Not a tragedy. Sorry guys. Figure it out for yourselves.

Not sure what you mean.

If you mean an artists work is actually something that has borrowed and gotten inspiration from others than yes I agree, but there is always a level of originality and a creativity in culminating the different ideas into a coherent story/image.

Or if you mean that a artists work isn't truly their own because its success is dependent on how well its received (so something badly received could damage the artists ability to make new pieces of art ect) than yes I sort of agree there, but it still doesn't change the fact that the art is a product of the artists vision.

The only real point against it here is plagiarism.

Under law a work of art must not have more 33% of the exact details of another (copy right for paintings/logos). Video games is to difficult to put under this, because they are vastly complex, so it goes into a much easier definition of if the code is copy pasted from another game... copyright on code is called a software "Patent".

neon_samurai:Dragon age:origins, Starwars:KOTAR 1&2, Jade Empire,Neverwinter Nights 1&2, Baldur's Gate 1&2,Shattered Steel, Mass Effect 1&2(both still amazing games.)There you have it a list of why you should know what a company makes rather than just damn it for one really good game with a ending that makes sense but does not sit well with a part of the fan-base.

EVERY GAME

you just mentioned, was written or worked on by Drew...

Not the lead writer of ME 3 that's Mac W. Drew was put on the MMO, and left the company at the beginning of the year. He also "created" the ME universe.

He also said, "it will be interesting to see how they handle this", as CLEARLY this was NOT the game he had in mind... but some "artist" had a "vision" and needed to make a "simple sequel" "deep", and faff'ed about, wasting time and money, took a rainbow dump in the box... and there ya go.

Art

I dont give a damn about how M.E ended. All I am saying is that damning a whole company based on one thing, even with all the good game it has produced ,is not the best why of going about saying that one game it produced didn't meet your hopes.

I'm not understanding why Bioware changing the ending of a game that is broadly disliked among fans of the series will take us into an age of horrifying fanservice design-by-committee endings where artistic integrity becomes meaningless, but Bethesda doing the same thing several years ago hasn't. Doesn't the fact that it's already been done before and not resulted in an "artpocalypse" prove that this hysterical bleating from journos is nonsense?

Further, I don't play games to experience the artistic vision of the developer, I play games to be entertained. The artistic vision of the developer is an aspect of that experience, but it is not the point of it, and I would argue that Yhatzee of all people would find it incongruous that a game which has been played out as a pulp space opera suddenly has a huge arty-for-its-own-sake deus ex machina tacked on to the end of it.

Even further; MovieBob is a cretin, and I would consider the opinion of a festering bunion on my toe before his, invoking his whinging indie twitter rages doesn't aid your case.

I loved the entire mass effect series. Read the books, comics, done it all. I'm completely fine with the ending. I'm not sure what everybody expected but it was the ending I predicted. I could see the writing on the wall fairly early on. A bit like Red Dead Redemption. Doom was in the air.

The fact that the "multiple endings" was a bit of a con is absolutely in keeping with Mass Effect 1 & 2. Maybe other people don't see it but each Mass Effect has been a series of bottle necks with some expansion of plot between each node.

No matter WHAT you decide the outcome for every single mission is basically the same. Everyone destroys Sovereign and Saren in the first game. Everybody fights the giant baby terminator in ME2. Everybody does the exact same story missions and the only variation is a bit of dialogue and the "concept" that you picked A instead of B. Killed Wrex? Fine, you get a different Krogan and a bit of different dialogue in ME2. Effect on missions and gameplay and the outcome of other missions? = 0! Nothing, nada.

The Blue Paragon/Red Renegade is the biggest con of all. You need to get person X to do Y. You can sweet talk them with Blue option, result = you get Y. You can intimidate them with Red option, result = you get Y. Where exactly is the massive change in decisions.

I know "the means" is the interesting part and no "the ends" but at no point as Mass Effect even shown anything but a cursory nod towards "multiple-choices". The impact of even the most important choices from previous games result in a bit of dialogue difference, and maybe a footnote in the codex or war assets. As far as concluding subplots I can't see a single thing they didn't answer. Not sure what closure people are missing but no story, film, book, or game is going to list what happens to every single character at the end of a series. Unless it's LOTR and that's the worst part of the books.

I love Mass Effect but I never played it for the "multiple-choices". That's fluff, a thin icing on very lovely cake. Anyone saying Mass Effect set an expectation of multiple endings or massive changes in plot due to choices made is a complete liar or a fool. They've always said this stuff and it's never been true before. It's like CoD going on about "loads of new weapons and perks" when it's the same stuff rebranded and tweaked a bit. They've said this stuff from day one and at no point has a decision made in ME ever made much difference to the major story line. At least not a single change to the chain of events.

I can only presume these people only played ME2, and not ME1 and believed the hype about carrying your decisions over to the next game. Coupled with the fact that the series is ending (sad face) and that it's pretty damn obvious only sad endings are going to occur (how many missions in ME end with "Yeah! Everybody is happy"??) that left them feeling sad. Unable to comprehend or reflect on this new emotion produced by art they had a temper tantrum. You know, like a child does if his hero in a film dies.

Why is it that every time someone makes an article about the Mass Effect 3 ending that isn't just a long-winded /agreement of those that are demanding a new ending, they're accused of "missing the point"?

We get the point already! Mass Effect 3's ending(s) are bad and poorly done, and probably done so to justify additional DLC. Bioware either lied about the "vastly different endings that just won't be the ABC ending," or don't grasp the concept that picking between destruction, control, or synthesis at the end of the game is an ABC ending. It's Executive Meddling from EA. It's a way to milk the franchise.

We get it!

Now...

Our Point. Missing it. Nice job not understanding.

We're not claiming the ME3 ending(s) aren't bad... some are, but most aren't. At least I think that's the case anyway.

Our point is that all of this is just not worth it. In the end, it's just a video game. It's the same with the Star Wars fanboys who have wasted over 10 years of their lives trying to "retake" Star Wars. In the end, they're just movies. Disappointing origin stories, horridly unconvincing loves stories, highly annoying goofy sidekicks, and poorly conceived techno-babble explaining how the Force works are just not worth frothing at the mouth all your life over.

All of the time, energy, effort, and money thrown at this is just not worth it! People are spending thousands of dollars to sent Bioware symbolic cupcakes for crying out loud! It has just gotten silly at this point. Don't become like the Star Wars fanboys. Don't obsess over this. You'll only regret it later in life.

There are more important things to put so much effort into fighting. Poverty, crime, starvation, pollution, child abuse, animal abuse, sexism, and racism just to name a few. A crappy ending to a video game should be at the bottom of your activism list._________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Also repeatedly sweeping counter-arguments under the rug by declaring that they "missed the point" is not helping your cause. It's making you look like overly-dramatic children to many people, including those you're trying to convince.

(Yes, I see the irony of me saying this after accusing you of "missing the point," but I honestly believe that many do miss the point of those saying that the outcry over the ME3 ending needs to stop.)

Now if I somehow still "miss the point," then please explain what the point is.

Three words, Motivation.

Gamers dont really see an insta-reward from donating money to Red Cross. However they can look forward to playing a better ending once Bioware changes it. Its the main differences between the two, one has a lot more motivation as the other one, in order to get motivation you need sufficient empathy. Something a lot of people 'lack'.

ROTTOK Crapgame:The problems I have with the ME3 endings are purely plot based, they leave gaping holes, and generally make ZERO sense.

1. The Normandy gets wrecked by the energy pulse flowing through the Mass Relay... HOW? This would mean that Joker had legged it away from the final battle through the Mass Relay BEFORE I made my final decision on the Citadel, cheers for that Joker, you coward, that's right run away and leave Sheperd and the rest of the Alliance to their fate, not to mention the rest of the alien fleets.

2. After the above debacle takes place, some of my squad get off the Normandy! So Joker had time to swoop down and pick them up before legging it! Garrus and Liara were in my final assault squad, and they got off the Normandy! WHAT THE FUCK! My best friend, and my 'girlfriend' both leave me to die on Earth and choose to save their own asses.

3. All the alien fleets are now trapped in the Sol system, the Quarian and Turians starve to death because they can't eat the food, and all the races would blame Sheperd and the Alliance for trapping them on the wrong side of the galaxy which would start a nasty pushing match and no mistake. 3 to 4 hours of game play rescuing Rannoth and brokering peace between the Geth and Quarians all comes to nothing. Another couple of hours play curing the Genophage was pointless because most of the male Krogan are either on Palaven or Earth, and the list goes on.

4. Destroying a Mass Relay causes rather a loud POP! Or so we are led to believe, if ME2 DLC is to be believed, and if so this renders point 3 mute, and destroys all the worlds in a system containing a Mass Relay.

These 4 points are common to ALL the endings, so you can't say that it's dependent on choice, if you choose to 'Destroy' the Reapers you also wipe out the Geth, and EDI (UP YOURS JOKER! TRY NOT RUNNING AWAY NEXT TIME) Choose 'Assimilation' and everybody becomes 'Borg' Resistance IS futile! And 'Control' means you not only control the Reapers, but the Geth and EDI.

I could have coped with the endings as they stand if they made sense, but they don't, not in any artistic, literary or plot based context. They pose more questions than they answer, they disregard plot and canon, and reduce the ending of a trilogy down to 'RED, BLUE or GREEN' Then for the final insult, after the credits roll, you are magically transported back onto the Normandy so you can play the DLC, and any other missions you have missed, and so you can play the final mission again so you can view the alternative endings.

I don't mind if Sheperd was to die, I'd prefer it if she didn't, but then again I like an upbeat ending. But I just want closure, who lives, who dies, in an ending befitting the game and with a little acknowledgement of what MY Sheperd has achieved.

1) It is clear from the ending that there is a big gap between Battle ends (reapers leave/die) and mass relays explodes. Why it is illogical to think Joker was in the thick of the battle, then the battle is over... then the mass relays are seen overcharging and the whole fleet start fleeing? Mass effect universe ships have FTL drives independent of the Mass Relays. Of course Bioware show you just the Normandy instead of showing all the thousands other ships.

2)Yeps, this is impossible. See below though for one explanation.

3)FTL drives! The mass effect ships have them! You explore the whole galaxy in ME1, ME 2 and 3. Mass Relays are only in some systems, then you go FTL and move to other systems! Yes, it needs fuel but it is clear it takes only a short time (or then all the exploration done in ME3 would take YEARS and nothing in game implies that long has passed).

So the fleets (assuming they survive the Green/blue/Red explosion) are NOT stranded. It will just take them a few months to get back home instead than a few minutes.

4) Clearly the explosions of ME3 ending are not the same as Arrival. The first case is of something shutting down as designed, the second was tampering. at least that is one possible explanation, but see below for another one.

Finally: Indoctrination Theory, look it up, it makes 100% sense and I am convinced it is what happens here. There are plenty of evidence for it, but here are some points:

1) the child Shepard sees in the very first mission of the game is an Hallucination! No one else seems to see him, Not Anderson nor any of the dudes at the shuttle. You would think someone on the shuttle would go and HELP a poor child up the damn thing, but noooo, he has to climb by himself. Also earlier the child is seen entering a locked door and then the whole building explode in fire when hit by a reaper beam, still he is unscathed. Note: Suffering from hallucinations is a clear sign of Reapers' Influence as evidenced in ME2 Codex entry on Indoctrination.

2)During the whole ME3 shepard suffers from Nightmares in which dark, oily figures are present. Dark oily figures is exactly how the Rachni queen in ME1 describe the Reapers' influence. Ie: Shepard is getting indoctrinated!

3)The whole sequence AFTER being hit by Harbinger is a dream sequence that happens in your mind as you struggle against indoctrination. This is made clear by many clues:A) the radio chatter makes it clear no one survived, but seemingly they somehow missed not only Shepard, but also AndersonB) your pistol has infinite ammoC) Anderson somehow get to the console BEFORE you, even if he says he "followed you in"D) your armor is all wrecked, but somehow the radio works?E) You shoot Anderson in the guts, but later it is Shepard that has a FRESH gut wound, with fresh blood spilling overF) if they saw no one enter the beam, how come Hackett suddenly talks to you?G) The Child ramblings are just that, ramblings, designed to confuse and deceive you.H) the choices are color inverted. During the WHOLE game, choosing to Control the Reaper was the Renegade/RED choice and destroying them was the Paragon/BLUE choice, but at the end they are inverted, another deceit of the Reapers.I) if you choose Blue or Green, you give in to the Reapers and become indoctrinated, infact shepard's skin fuses and becomes that of an Husk, also his eyes become like the Illusive Man's eyes. You choose Red, the one the Reapers do not want you to pick, and you stay human.J) The RED ending supports this enormously. If you pick this with full war rating, you get a bonus scene at the end where you see a N7 armored figure in a pile of rubble taking a breath. That is Shepard, armor intact and alive. This means he/she fought off the indoctrination of the Reaper and is ready to end the fight (coming in a future DLC for sure)... Note his armor is still there, therefore all that happened before was a dream... also he is in London rubble (it is concrete, not shiny metal, also no way Shepard would have survived a orbital re-entry as the Citadel exploded), not the Citadel's.So this means the whole normandy sequence, explosion, people on the jungle planet... it is all just in your mind! what Shepard would like to happen to his friends and this also explains why your love interest is ALWAYS seen exiting the Normandy. Makes sense that Shepard would like his or her girl/boyfriend to be alive and well.

4) Bioware people have many times said on Twitter and others that not all is over and to keep your saves!

So embrace the Indoctrination Theory. It sucks that we need to wait and a probable DLC to see the real ending, but this Theory makes too much sense and explain EVERYTHING to be false.

Plus: Bioware are not sucky writers, come on, the three Mass Effect games should prove this.Plus: The ending is still to comeMinus: We will, most probably, have to fork out money to see it, which sucks, I agree.

I just finished the game last night (bit late to the party) and here's what I think.The ending isn't great, for the obvious reasons- lack of closure, loose plot ends, nonsensical fantastic ending (I chose Synthesis), confusing options etc. But at least Bioware tried, instead of going with the everyone-lives-everyone's-happy ending, and that I respect. It would have destroyed the grit and the immense sense of doom that Bioware managed to create over the trilogy.To be honest, the most disappointing thing for me was that my Shepard wouldn't be able to fulfill the promise and dream of surviving to spend the rest of his life with Liara, but that just goes to show how strong the storytelling is, it isn't a problem with the ending.If they do change things, I'd hope it'd just be a small thing added on to tie up loose ends.

Now to try and find out what exactly this "indoctrination theory" is...

The endings were different colors of the same toothpaste. Fans are not pissed off because Shepard died, they are pissed because no matter what the ending was the same. The "big" decisions that Shepard made had no effect on the ending. Bioware gave us pick A, B, or C after making it quite clear (before the game) that they were not going to give us A, B, or C. No matter which A, B, or C the player chose the ending was the same plot holed garbage that everyone else had. There was no warrior's death, no hero's demise, only a plot littered with holes. As a fan I was not opposed to dying I just wanted to die a damn good death and have an ending to reflect that, not a quick five minute ending that was riddled with holes.

Gamers dont really see an insta-reward from donating money to Red Cross. However they can look forward to playing a better ending once Bioware changes it. Its the main differences between the two, one has a lot more motivation as the other one, in order to get motivation you need sufficient empathy. Something a lot of people 'lack'.

It is so sad that what you said here is true.

Too many gamers are selfish. They won't do anything useless there is some kind of shiny thing for them. *sigh* They really need to take a serious look at what the word, "rewarding," truly means.

T3hSource:It does make sense but the question brought up in the ending didn't have any build up to it.Yes it was tackled with the geth,but from that point on it's just referred by characters,not brought in as the major narrative focus.And those grim ending you suggested would still be better than what we got.

Yeah, turns out if you spend the $10 to get Javik, that question suddenly has quite a bit of build up to it.

wintercoat:Yes, it would set a precedent because this has never happened before, has it? This will most assuredly be the first time ever that an artist has changed their work due to fan pressure. Nope, this has never happened before and everything is on the line now!

Pretty sure I see what you did there.

Notice how the only scenes eluding to the ending were part of the from ashes dlc, which was (according to bioware) made post production.

So either the ending wasn't rushed and they decided to remove any details that aid the ending making even a bit of sense to charge for DLC OR the ending was rushed and they used the from ashes DLC to try to bandage a broken ending.

Either way is + points for Bioware am i right?

PLUS YOU RESOLVE THE GETH/QUARIAN conflict anyway by giving them individuality. EDI points this out that it is the collective nature of ai that makes them rebel so again the ending makes no sense.

First off dont take your frustrations out on Yahtzee, you bloody well know he is a gamer, his whole life is gaming related. Secondly you guys are JUST fans, not creators, authors, developers, own ANYTHING of the games IP. I understand you the story didn't end with flowers and sunshine flying out of Jokers crippled ass while Shepard and Liara do it on the most perfect rainbow. But they did say it is the end of Shepard's story and how else do you think it would end? Honestly, every know that here in the states if they live then there IS a way to make an other game. And what would you be more upset about a poetic ending that ENDS the story or Mass Effect 7: Shepard Waits for his VA Benefits to go Thru this Month.

I know this will fall on deaf ears and there will be no response or bad responses. Let them come I will continue my fight for the creators rights to do what they want to do just like fans will continue the fight for their own perfect game. Both are admirable fights each with their own value and place in this industry to fight.

Roroshi14:First off dont take your frustrations out on Yahtzee, you bloody well know he is a gamer, his whole life is gaming related. Secondly you guys are JUST fans, not creators, authors, developers, own ANYTHING of the games IP. I understand you the story didn't end with flowers and sunshine flying out of Jokers crippled ass while Shepard and Liara do it on the most perfect rainbow. But they did say it is the end of Shepard's story and how else do you think it would end?

In a reasonable way that makes sense within the Mass Effect universe, minus the gigantic plotholes.

"I had to laugh at Yahtzee Croshaw's reasoning for not changing the ending. Here is a quote:

"The series will effectively have no ending, just a big gap with the words "Audience: Fill In Your Preferred Ending Here".

What I find ironic is that this is a perfect description of the ending as it actually stands. Bioware basically told us all to make up our own post-ME Universe in the current ending.

So he is saying we should not replace an ending where the audience must choose the ending with a different ending influenced by the audienence the game was made for."

Look, I'm in the game industry myself. I'm a 3D modeler and Zbrush sculptor. I gave up my "artistic integrity" when I decided to make a living selling my work as a commercial artist for a commercial product like a video game.

And the thing is, all my work is geared towards the PLAYER'S ultimate enjoyment. If my 3D model fails to live up to their standards, then it is a failure on MY part, not on THEIR appreciation.

To offer another quote, from my animation instructor, "A good artist accepts criticism and applies it. A bad artistic claims the viewer misunderstood his genius and intent. Ultimately, the viewer's opinion is NEVER wrong because your art affected them in an honest way; it's up to you to deal with their reactions, either with humility or arrogance, but never blame them for thinking poorly of your work."

He really had nothing to add here. He just felt obliged to. Anyone getting that feel here? Well he did throw in there some ideas for some endings that could have worked about a million times better, but it's all really insubstantial.

There are many issues with me3, however i think an important one is: the game fails to get the player emotionally invested in the plot - most importantly, in the characters, and in the EARTH IN PERIL main plot point.

EARTH, (and also ALL ORGANIC LIFE and THE ENTIRE GALAXY) is simply too large a concept for us to be able to form an emotional attachment to.

If you were to think of why earth blowing up right now might suck, you'll think about yourself, your memories, your friends, family, and so on.

So, you need to make what is at stake more personal, more accessible.

Now, Bioware tries to put a human face on this through the KID. However, this is such a heavy handed and obvious attempt at emotional manipulation, that the player simply rejects it right away.

I'm sure you all groaned when u saw the kid at the beginning.

Then later on, we are never given any evocative imagery from the crisis on Earth. We only ever see a hologram of Anderson, who TELLS us that things are in a bad way. We never SEE the crisis. Even when you land on Earth for the final mission, it seems pretty bland and boring. Not exactly captivating in any way.

What might have worked would be say... newscasts from Earth, images of an abandoned child crying in the wreckage of a house, of rag tag bands uselessly attacking a reaper with sticks and stones, of people crawling on their bellies trying to escape husks, of people being horribly captured, processed, along with the sound of crying, wailing, fire, and so on.

Little bits like this would bring the conflict on Earth down to a personal level, would get the player to become more emotionally invested in the issue.

Its not my job to write the ending to a product. The ending is so bad and leaves so many plot points unresolved that people ARE ALREADY WRITING THEIR OWN ENDINGS. Indoctrination Theory? I didn't pay to have to do someone else's job for them. I want to force Bioware to finish the game.

It was finished. Purchase for product does not entitle you to a particular quality of product.

One thing i think we should remember is that Bioware doesn't exactly have the best track record with its other series.

Neverwinter Nights was great, #2 didn't do as well. KotOR was great; KotOR 2 wasn't quite as well received. Dragon Age Origins was well liked, DA2 not so much.

Now all these games were pretty good, but all i'm saying is that Bioware tends to taper off the further it gets into a series (yes, baldur's gate 2 was great, but throne of baahl was less so).

Also, there was that merger with Mythic between ME2 and ME3, and one of their lead writers for ME1 & 2, Drew Karpyshyn (who also worked on BG2, NWN1, and KotOR1) was put to work on the Knights of the Old Republic MMO.

Not saying that Karpyshyn was carrying the story all by himself - there were a whole lot of other writers on ME2 - but imo he's the one with the most experience, and the most consistently solid portfolio (game writing-wise).

Yahtzee didn't really seem to give a shit. Kinda sounded like he made this article just because.

While I obviously don't agree with his opinion, he isn't as insufferably deluded as Moviebob or Colin Moriarty of IGN in his criticisms of the fan reaction.

I definitely agree with his bringing up of Shepard's blandness.

One of my many problems with ME3 (besides the ending, which people are acting like it's the ONLY problem with the game) is the failure to humanize and Shepard in any way.

As brought up above, the attempt to humanize Shepard through the scenes with the child are laughably executed and failed completely to show the stress and weight of the situation getting to Shepard.

Maybe if Bioware showed Shepard's physical health deteriorating as the game (ala Shadow of the Colossus) via stress and perhaps a rejection of the synthetics implanted by the Illusive man (or maybe Shepard's new body is in fact disintegrating?) to imply humanity and weakness in the character.

But this doesn't happen. And with Shepard's family made dead through text (my Paragon Shep was from Akuze), Shepard has no real emotion connection to Earth's obliteration and thus Earth just becomes another mission to a falling planet.

This makes me think the entire Mass Effect trilogy could have executed better if Shepard was a more defined and human character (like Ashley Williams or Navigator Presley), and gone through the ark of being ignorant and xenophobic towards working with alien races, but then gradually learning to work together and unify everyone against the Reapers on Earth, with his family on Earth to protect. Bioware could have delivered a more defined and stronger narrative, not having to worry about player input.

But instead Shepard was made a bland foil in a player-choice driven trilogy.

zehydra:It was finished. Purchase for product does not entitle you to a particular quality of product.

The ending was a clear rush job. There's no point in arguing that. Ignoring the writing, it lacked any form of fluidity and felt slapped together and disjointed in comparison to the rest of the cut scenes. Shepard reminiscing of still images of the cast kind of give that away.

But anyway, purchase of a product sold on the basis of player choice (and apparently 16 different endings) would imply the aforementioned would be delivered.

zehydra:It was finished. Purchase for product does not entitle you to a particular quality of product.

The ending was a clear rush job. There's no point in arguing that. Ignoring the writing, it lacked any form of fluidity and felt slapped together and disjointed in comparison to the rest of the cut scenes. Shepard reminiscing of still images of the cast kind of give that away.

But anyway, purchase of a product sold on the basis of player choice (and apparently 16 different endings) would imply the aforementioned would be delivered.

It clearly was not.

I guess you could sue on the basis of false advertising, but if they didn't advertise the fact, then it's your own fault for purchasing the game.

That, and the screen in the ending that says "Thanks for playing, be sure to look out for and buy DLC!". That's atrocious. The game's ending is asking me to spend more money! Is nothing fucking sacred to you in games, EA?! Why not just have Shepard get e-mails all the time reminding him that From Ashes is available for 800 MS Points as well, you scum-sucking swine?!

Correct. The ending while horrible was bulldozed by this. Remember "be sure to drink your Ovaltine?" That's the last line of ME3.

CriticKitten:I love how the natural response to anyone who expresses indifference or disagreement with the idea of changing the ending to ME3 "just doesn't get it".

Well, yes. We don't get it. And some of us (such as myself) don't want to "get it", either, because apparently "getting it" means to just blindly accept that you're right. No one seems all that willing to accept a point of view that doesn't instantly translate to "SCREW EA THIS GAME'S ENDING SUCKS AND MUST BE CHANGED NAO".

No matter how good or bad the story was ended, changing the ending of a game post-humorously due to fan reaction sets a terrible precedent that I never want to see done, much less repeated (as it will be, if a title as big as Mass Effect does it then other games will feel obligated to). I won't deny it's a terrible ending (unless you buy the indoctrination theory in which case it's actually closer to brilliance disguised as a bad ending), and I won't try to claim that there aren't some valid complaints here. But think about it: do you really want people to be forced to change the endings to games because they don't meet with your explicit specifications? What happens when people disagree (as they do here)? Do the people who liked ME3's ending just get drowned out by the vocal ones and that's it? There needs to be a line in the sand, and I think forcing companies to change their games for reasons other than bug fixing is crossing that line.

If you're really so mad at EA for messing this story up, then do what you should have done years ago: stop buying their products. Boycott them. Hit them where it hurts, and you'll teach them to change their ways. Yet I've seen dozens of posts on this forum saying that people would happily pay for DLC that fixes the ending, proving to me that perhaps YOU (yes, you) are the ones who truly do not "get it". If you're willing to pay them to "fix" the ending, you're only encouraging them to do it again.

For the people up in arms, it's unthinkable that anybody cannot see how bad these ending are. They introduced a theme that superseded the original one of just stop the reapers and concluded it in 14 lines of dialog so I'm inclined to believe what they're saying. It gives no closure and does not wrap up many many lose ends. Largely the problem stems from the hologram kid apparently and there's a mod out there that just shows Shepherd and Anderson bleeding out then it cutting to reapers destroyed ending which easily was better than bio ware's own attempt to explain.

However here I was thinking that this entire time EA had just cut the ending that made any sense so people WOULD buy it as DLC and have been milking the bad ending as publicity ever since. It's the kind of thing they would do. My response like many others id assume, is to not pay for the game but I may just end up playing it plus DLC. Ill let you guess how.

If I didn't know better, I'd say that the people who said the endings were fine are either trolling or just don't give a fuck.